With haptic feedback, you don't even need to look at your wrist to respond to "messages".

As for video...I use my iPad to watch video podcasts. I realize a bigger screen is more enjoyable for video. So the iPad is primarily used to watch video on the couch? That's fine. Apple is still selling millions of them, but that's not going to place iPad anywhere near iPhone as an all-encompassing mobile device.

A 5-5-inch display is great (and largely replaces the need for a iPad for movies), but carrying such a big phone in a pocket can be much more challenging than a smaller device. If I could keep the phone at least near me (or in a backpack/purse), being able to get info at a glance from an Apple Watch without having to fumble taking the phone out every few minutes makes a lot of sense to me.

Love how they gave you the PG-rated reason for why voice service lowers your total bill. Want to know the real reason?

The underlining premise for all of these silly packages and deals is to offer a low introductory rate and then slowly but surely increase the monthly rate until you are paying full price. Since it is done over the course of 6-12 months, chances are good you won't be too upset with each gradual step higher. With these "triple play" packages, you initially pay a low price up front, but within 12-24 months you are paying full price for internet, cable, and surprise surprise phone service. You then call to cancel the phone portion of your play (assuming you even take that initiative - most people don't) and will get the "well we currently don't have any special deals available". You are now stuck paying for internet, cable, and voice. They are betting though that you won't even bother getting this far and will just start paying for voice ($20-$25/month).

Comcast does the same thing and they also use different modems for voice and they love to rent them to people for $7/month. Of course they won't mention this until it shows up on your bill.

This type of study is interesting and I think many misunderstand the main thesis' underlining themes.

Happy is a subjective term. Happy for a 23-year old out of college would simply be a pay check, while happy for a 40-year parent with fixed bills will be higher. The study is trying to remove the subjectivess and instead look at happiness in an absolute vaccuum - at what point will one's happiness peak. Such a question is indeed easier to answer (with states cost of living being the largest variable when trying to compare numbers).

For the average American, $83,000 will result in max happiness. Make $100,000? Probably won't be that much more happy than if you were making $83,000. Mo' money, mo' problems is true. The study doesn't make any conclusions as to your standard of living or how many toys you, but instead focus just on happiness.

1) The video looked interesting for the first 20-30 seconds and then it just got incredibly boring and repetetious. Using drone footage would make for a great beginning or end, but it really isn't practical to shoot an entire wedding day from drone.
2) That rice throwing scene probably would have looked much better with footage at ground level (which they probably also had being shot).
3) "When asked about the video, Maloney's office noted to Business Insider that the drone company, Propellerheads Aerial Photography, is headed by a veteran who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan." Not sure how that is revelvent but seems like they got some heat from having a lavish wedding.

Buying used isn't for everyone. If you don't really care what kind of car you drive or if you like working on cars, fine, but:

1) Let's get real, the posters above suggesting everyone should just learn how to fix cars. Um, no. If you like fixing cars, fine, but it's indigenous to suggest normal people should "just pick up a wrench". At the end of the day, used cars are used. You don't know their story (despite things like carfax), you especially don't know HOW they were driven. Dealers make a killing on used cars and mislead people with this "certified pre-own" stuff. All it really means is if you are protected if the engine breaks the next month. Give it 3 years and you will likely have issues and need to replace various things.

2) Buy a used car with 50K miles on it or so and you pretty much cut your vechicle holding period in half vs. buy a new car and most likely be able to get a good 8-10 years out of it, most likely 10-11. Doubt you can say the same with used.

Ah, the classic buy or lease debate. Here's the way I look at it: What do the dealers like most? Whatever the answer is, the odds are very good that it represent the worst deal for the consumer.

Dealers love leases. They make money by leasing the car to begin with, they then make more money by selling your car after 39 months or so. They are basically selling the same car 2 times. Throw in trade-ins, and they will make even more money because you always get screwed with trade-ins.

What makes the most sense financially? Wait until the new year models hit the lot and buy the now "old" model in cash and HOLD FOR AT LEAST 10 YEARS. Last part is key. 1) Dealer will want to get rid of it because it's taking up space on the lot (pretty costly) and who wants the "old" model? 2) By buying the car in cash, you are saving on any kind of leasing or loan charge which will offset any maintance costs in the first few years. 3) Don't like the car after three years? Sell it. Every other lease/buy/loan option will cost you more money. No way around it.

Few other items:
1) Cars have warranties that cover you aganist a lemon for the first 100,000 miles or so. So there is no reason to worry that you buy a new car in cash and it breaks down the next month.
2) Car maintanence is nothing like it was. As long as you do basic oil changes every 7-9K miles, you really shouldn't need much for the first 100,000 miles or so unless you have random small problems occur (like bushings or something). I see people say "my lease includes free maintance" - do you even know what you are getting? basically a free $30 oil change each year. Your lease is only three years. There really won't be much to get fixed.

So in summary: this makes the most sense from a purely financial sense:
1) Buy new (but the "old" model) in cash and keep for 10 years.
2) Lease new and if you like it and still have low miles, buy at end of lease (this is essentially an option play. You know how the car drives. If residual value is less than market price and you have low miles - no brainer - buy it).
3) Lease. Just focus on monthly payments and be the person dealers love.
4) Buy with high-interest loan. Not sure why someone would do this.

I see where Anoka is coming from and I think LOL is missing a few things.

1) Buying used is not a good thing since you truly don't know how that car was driven before you and more likely than not, there is a reason why the person who previously leased (or owned) that car, no longer wants it. If you want a used car that is three years old, you probably are looking at 40-45K miles. So essentially you have 3-4 years of use before it goes bad and issues come up (brakes, shocks, etc.) - and that is assuming there is nothing wrong with the car to begin with.

2) Dealers love people in this order:

1) Leasers: Come in, focus ust on the monthly payments, and keep getting new cars. Dealers LOVE THIS.
2) Used buyers: Dealers mark up used certified cars like woah.
3) Buyer using loan: Usually very high interest.
3) Buyers using cash: Dealers could make maybe 5-7% profit off the buyer. Decent, but nothing like a lease or financed buy.
4) Leaser to buyer: After earning money from your initial lease, they earn NOTHING from you when you buy it out at end of lease. Nothing. They will try deseperatly to get you to lease again, when its clear you won't, they treat you like Sh*t.

The only point I have for Anoka is concerning this "half a percent interest" in leasing the car. You would need to give more details on how you got that because most dealers won't have anything to do with it - it's too low. Maybe the lot wanted to get rid of that car desperately? In the situation you descrived, it makes sense to do what you are doing so congrats.

Wow there is so much wrong going on here not even sure where to start.
1) Kane had her 15 minutes a few weeks ago. Let's move on to other topics, ok? No need to keep writing posts about her.
2) Don't brush off unannounced Apple products. Similarily, don't assume the latest rumors about unannounced Apple products are true.
3) Apple has a management page. They have start dates for each exeuctive. I suggest you take a look and see their histories and time spent at Apple.
4) The title of this article doesn't match the premise of the article. Essentially you are talking about reversion to the mean. Why bring Steve Jobs into this? The theory would apply regardless of Steve being around or not.

He's a new CEO that understandably needs to do "stuff" in his first few months or else MSFT morale will continue to fall and the board will look like a bunch of fools. Don't be naive though - Bill Gates has signed off on these changes - and I wouldn't be shocked if Ballmer also in one form or another agreed to this (he just didn't want to be in charge of managing it).

Key sentence: "Microsoft is going to try to make money on services and other software that comes with Windows."

No clue what "WALL ST. CHEAT SHEET" is, but judging from this article I am not missing much.

"Google wanted to open its doors to all of the benefits of public ownership without jeopardizing the authority of its core principals — Brin, Page, Schmidt, and a handful of other key executives and directors — over the company’s direction and strategy."

A.K.A. Little to no corporate goverence.

How again is this a good thing? Or is the author writing this from Google management's persepctive?

"The latter oversight sounds serious but it's more a matter of 23andMe not giving the FDA the correct paperwork in a timely manner than a fundamental flaw in the technology 23andMe is developing."

You are overly simplifying the issue here. 23andMe didn't think they needed to follow the same rules and procedures that every other company before them had to follow. The FDA's primary concern here is if 23andMe gives you results that could lead to a false positive (i.e. you are susceptible to something which causes you to alter your medication or routine, thereby making you worse off). It's a very serious allegation.

I've always found the product to gimmicky. Few, if any doctors, knew what to do with the read-out, and it was more of a cute dinner party conversation starter than anything else. Looks like I was more right than wrong.